GR. No.

27484 | September 1, 1927

ANGEL LORENZO, petitioner-appellantvs.THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH, respondent-appelleNature of Case:The purpose of this appeal is to induce the court to set aside thejudgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila sustaining thelaw authorizing the segregation of lepers, and denying the petitionfor habeas corpus, by requiring the trial court to receive evidenceto determine if leprosy is or is not a contagious disease.Facts

Angel Lorenzo was a leper. He was confined in San Lazaro

Hospital in Manila in conformity with the provisions ofSection 1058 of the Administrative Code, authorizing thesegregation of lepers. Lorenzo filed petition for a writ of habeascorpus with the Court of First Instance of Manila, alleging thathis confinement in said hospital was in violation of hisconstitutional rights. He alleged that human beings are notincurable with leprosy and that the disease may not becommunicated by contact. The trial court sustained the law anddenied the petition for habeas corpus. Lorenzo appealed.

ISSUE/S of the CASE:

(a) Whether the Administrative Code provision on the confinementof lepers violative of the latters constitutional rights on freedom oftravel.

SUPREME COURT RULING

No. The Philippine law pertaining to the segregation of lepers isfound in article XV of chapter 37 of the Administrative Code. Codal section1058 empowers the Director of Health and his authorized agents "to cause tobe apprehended, and detained, isolated, or confined, all leprous persons in thePhilippine Islands." In amplification of this portion of the law are foundprovisions relating to arrest of suspected lepers, medical inspection anddiagnostic procedure, confirmation of diagnosis by bacteriological methods,establishment of hospitals, detention camps, and a leper colony, etc.Section 1058 of the Administrative Code was enacted by thelegislative body in the legitimate exercise of the police power which extendsto the preservation of the public health. It was place on the statute books inrecognition of leprosy as a grave health problem. The methods provided forthe control of leprosy plainly constitute due process of law.Judicial notice will be taken of the fact that leprosy is commonlybelieved to be an infectious disease tending to cause one afflicted with it tobe shunned and excluded from society, and that compulsory segregation oflepers as a means of preventing the spread of the disease of supported byhigh scientific authority. Upon this view, laws for the segregation of lepershave been provided the world over. Similarly, the local legislature hasregarded leprosy as a contagious disease and has authorized measures tocontrol the dread scourge. It would require a much stronger case than thepresent case for the Court to sanction admitting the testimony of expert orother witnesses to show that a law of this character may possibly violatesome constitutional provision. To that forum must the petitioner go to reopenthe question.